Dissecting the 'Breivik doctrine' (1)

While the Breivik doctrine is not really new, the Norwegian terrorist has made a true blood sacrifice, a hecatomb, to make sure his ideas are known to the World. Every fascist with pretenses of certain intellectualism is right now reading Breivik's manifesto or has already read it in full. So it is only fair that we at the Left have an idea of what this terrorist hero of the Zionists and Atlantists is saying. None the less because we are his main enemies, ranking no.1 in all his lists under the name of Cultural Marxists.

I am still on the process of reading Breivik's manifesto and I am not sure if I will be able to finish it. Life is too short to waste on lengthy fascist rantings admittedly. But this may well be the Mein Kampf of our time and, the same that one could not afford to ignore Hitler in the 1930s, we cannot ignore Breivik in the 2010s either.

By the moment I have read the introduction, which I found oddly interesting, in a twisted sense. The first thing you understand reading it is that the Butcher of Utöya is by no means a mere madman but quite lucid in the limited understanding that right wing fanaticism and religious faith allows. 

Cultural Marxism

A. Gramsci

The introduction is about Marxism, about what he calls Cultural Marxism (CM hereafter), which is what most people would call Humanism, including human rights, equality regardless of gender, race, faith or sexual preferences, etc. This he calls CM but also political correctness, etc. Essentially Breivik's seems to be a reactionary rebellion against the Humanist advancements of the late 20th century. As such reactionary rebellion it has nowhere to go (swimming against the current)... but it may cause much pain in the meantime. 

He makes a huge effort on blaming Marxists and quasi-Marxists for these advances. He names the following: Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács specially, but also Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These last three belong to the so-called Frankfurt School of philosophy, which he also mentions by name.

Particularly obsessed with Lukács

G. Lukács

There are some lies and contradictions, specially regarding Lukács. According to the Butcher of Utöya, Georg Lukács began his political life as agent of the Kremlin (sic) but he managed to be Deputy Commissary for Culture in Revolutionary Hungary as early as 1919. How come?! There was not even a consolidated Soviet government in 1919!

Yet he is proclaimed by Breivik as the father of the sexual revolution, never mind Wilhelm Reich, who was expelled from the German Communist Party for holding such radical ideas. He's also, oddly enough, make to be the father of Feminism. Never mind he had a penis... and never mind that modern Feminism arose first of all in a largely Anglosaxon context, not a Hungarian one, and many decades before Lukács.

His allegedly decisive influential action, conceiving something known as cultural pessimism, is said to have happened in a secret meeting... go figure! Never mind that Lukacs is not at all associated with this nihilistic current, as is no Marxist because Marxism is a positive constructive philosophy.

Not a single mention of Lukács' role in the 1956-58 revolutionary process in Hungary and how he was deported after the Soviet invasion. It was precisely his role in the anti-Stalinist Hungarian revolution of 1956-58 what made Lukács popular in the West. Nothing of this is discussed by Breivik, who just wants to blame it for being a somewhat influential thinker in the context of European and Western Humanism.

Like so many fascists, he is obsessed with political correctness

The fact that fascist ideas are normally snubbed by the mainstream society, he considers (twistedly enough) a danger for freedom (freedom for fascists only?) Another form of political correctness he denounces is the opening from a parochial Eurocentric conception of the World, culture and history to a more balanced one. All that he hates just like a Taliban would from a perspective only slightly changed. 

In other words: he hates the consensus that exists in his social reality, which has emerged through the struggles of the 19th and 20th century. He hates Humanism. 

Frustrated anti-feminist macho

Feminism is deeply rooted in European culture

We know that Breivik spent his last night with two prostitutes. This alone tells a lot about the mentality of someone who thinks that women are mere objects to serve men.

Because Feminism is another of his bête noirs. Never mind that Europe may have a deeper tradition of proto-feminism than other parts of the World, for the Butcher this is an anti-European value. But what he sees as the pinnacle of feminization is metrosexualism, i.e. the fact that the decadent males of today are on occasion attracted to feminine elements such as perfumes or depilation.

Never mind that the men of the Ancient Regime, which he misses so much, were much more effeminate, fashioning elaborate and fancy clothes that the revolutionary forces took out of fashion (sans culottes' main identity element was precisely not wearing those fancy culottes of the aristocrats, never mind the wigs and perfumes). 

Authoritarianism and missing the whole point

Directly related to both Feminism and the Frankfort School is another obsession of the terrorist: the Authoritarian Personality, which Breivik equates to the male gender role. Never mind that this trait belongs to a disciplinary mode of production (Fordism) that is no longer viable in the social worker era (Toyotism). There is a big blank in Breivik's understanding of Marxism and Western cultural evolution and this is Situationism and Autonomism, which are probably too modern (60s, 70s) for his reactionary mind.

Capitalism corrupts all values

What you notice when you read Breivik's rantings is that, while he has some culture, it is very specific and fragmentary and that he is obsessed with finding an antagonist historical subject which to blame and destroy, in his case the Frankfurt School and what he so insistently calls CM. He does not understand that all that is just parts of the dialectics of Capitalism, which, like a cursed Midas, destroys all it touches by means of corruption. As Capitalism destroys all ancient values by means of internal rot, someone has to come to try to save society, this actor is of course the Working Class (rather than just a bunch of intellectuals), which is always building and maintaining the machines of Capital. And not just the material machines but also the social and cultural machines. Where Capitalist predation causes a vacuum, workers come to fill it with their sans culotte ideology of equality and freedom, which is nothing but the natural human way of being: the hunter-gatherer essence never fully destroyed in each of us. 

In brief, Breivik's thought (at least in what regards to the introduction) even if displaying a patina of education and an element of certain intelligence (and indeed lucidity of the paranoid-conservative kind) is just too obsolete and does not understand how societal and cultural dialectics really work.

No wonder. I must say that it is not easy and (because of their own psychological barriers) conservatives and reactionaries (and maybe even reformists) cannot really understand what is going on. They are blinded by categories that have lost their substance long ago, like religion or gender roles, and that cannot be restored after being touched by the Capitalist Midas of Rot. And even to Capitalism itself, when they dare to look at it, they attribute more power than it actually has (it is 100% dependent on the subservience of the Working Class). 

In any case it is interesting to see how this kind of thought, in spite of being anti-Islam, is almost identical to the kind of reactionary thought that a Taliban may embrace. We are before a Norwegian Zionist-Crusader Taliban able to make massive satanic blood sacrifices of sorts in the name of Christianity and Yaveh. 

Note:  I am not sure if I wish to continue reading the Butcher's propaganda and dissecting it but doing it with the introduction only at least, has been quite reassuring, admittedly.